Intimidation

Just because a composer is well known, doesn't mean that all of their works are "genius". Beethoven seems to be a well known trademark, but just because it is a well known trademark, doesn't mean the product is always good. In fact, I find alot of his music very boring and lacking motivation, same goes with Mozart. Bach was good, but his music seemed to follow a formula. Why do you think my favorite composer is Chopin?

I am not putting down these prolific composers, but not all of their music is genius, as far as I am concerned. There IS alot of crap that Mozart and Beethoven wrote, not because the music is musically incorrect, but because it lacks something. Some of their pieces just sound too generic, what can I say? Ask yourself the question, can you honestly sit down and listen carefully to all of Mozart's compositions without getting the least bit bored? How can you learn from a piece that is so uninspiring? I don't get it? I mean no offense, and as was mentioned, these guys did write some very good stuff, but I'm sorry, some of their works are just uninspiring and generic.

And this view varies wildly from person to person. For me, I appreciate the music of Mozart, but it seems as though he lacked alot of the darker sides of emotional expression (sadness, loss etc..) And all of his music seems to have this Spontaneous combustion about it. I agree with chopin on nearly everything that he said. And it is true that just because you write one or two things that are really good, doesn't mean everything else you write is equally as good. But nevertheless, as I said before, this view varies wildly

I think you may have misuderstood what I wrote.

I did not say that to write a lot is good.

I said that quantity does not equal quality.. in other words simply having written a lot of music does not mean it's all GOOD music. I made no judgement about any composers who have written less music.

I believe we are actually pretty much on the same wave length - I happen to greatly admire a number of composers who had rather small catalogues.

Maybe in tern you misinterpreted my comment :D

I was aggreeing with you.. just asking you about it :)

I find it silly for some people on this board to recognise that Mozart wrote some scraggy music...

Every work of Bach's has a perfection of craftmanship. Even in the early works.

I think something can be learned from a lot of these composers' music. I woudln't go calling it "crappy". I'm not some kinda sitback music consumer who spins a disc and expects to be entertained. I don't like this attitude. So I disagree with the dumbass remarks. It also has some to do with the person's tastes. If you are more into romanticism and etc. maybe you are conditioned to think that way. I find it a little superficial personally.

I mean no offense, and as was mentioned, these guys did write some very good stuff

Oh really? :D

Ask yourself the question, can you honestly sit down and listen carefully to all of Mozart's compositions without getting the least bit bored? How can you learn from a piece that is so uninspiring? I don't get it? I mean no offense, and as was mentioned, these guys did write some very good stuff, but I'm sorry, some of their works are just uninspiring and generic.

I'm not a big fan of Chopin, although I like some of his music, but honestly some of his music is boring to me. On one hearing. I wouldn't call it "crap", though. That's a pretty harsh term, considering there are much more deserving generes. Such as rap music. Or a good deal of *modern* music.

these guys did write some very good stuff

....:D

I've listened to a great deal of Beethoven's works, and I have yet to find a dull and unispiring one...

EDIT: Wait, no, I lie. I've heard one really disgusting work! The battle symphony, ''Wellington's Victory''. It was an excrement- though meant to be!

Every work of Bach's has a perfection of craftmanship. Even in the early works.

I think something can be learned from a lot of these composers' music. I woudln't go calling it "crappy". I'm not some kinda sitback music consumer who spins a disc and expects to be entertained. I don't like this attitude. So I disagree with the dumbass remarks. It also has some to do with the person's tastes. If you are more into romanticism and etc. maybe you are conditioned to think that way. I find it a little superficial personally.

and you, of course, have listened to every one of the - how many is it again? 900 cantatas? We know perfectly well, that the majority of those were lost - thrown away. Even of the 300 or so surviving there is so much mix-and-match going on in there, with chorales, ariosos, recitativos being repeated and reworked for the purposes of his weekly duties.

And you've also listened to every single little prealudium for cembalo he wrote?

I find your grand statement that the entirety of Bach's oeuvre shows signs of perfection to be (to use terms similar to your own) very "fan-boy". You're like the Star Wars fan-boys who see nothing wrong at all with those films and can't accept the slightest criticism of George Lucas. It's actually kind of funny.

I'm not a "sit back" sort of listener. I'm a professional musician. It has nothing do do with my prefering romantic era works - which I don't. I happen to prefer good Bach over excellent .

But to deny that Bach could possibly have written ANYTHING of lesser quality is just silly. Especially considering that he wrote it all nearly 300 years ago. We know very well that he tossed off pieces that were purely for money. Some of those have survived, while many have not.

I KNOW you are going to deny all of what I say is true, however, I'm hoping that at least some people here will understand and be open-minded and actually learn something.

If you only know the masterpieces of a composer, then that composer's output can appear intimidating.

Once you start to familiarize yourself with the lesser known - and lesser quality - output of those same composers, you can look at them for what they are: human beings with talent who created great things. People you can look up to and aspire to emulate.

Or you can do like PraeludiumUndFuge and deny the truth and continue to be intimidated by their existance. :D

I choose to see for myself, and to teach unto others, that there is no need to feel intimidated by apparent greatness. That that greatness is there, but the intimidation you re feeling is simply brought on by not having noticed the numerous failures and lesser works that are scattered about in the SHADOWS of those great works.

****

oh, and just so we set the record straight:

to accuse someone of "dumbass remarks" is just as offensive (if not more so) as saying that something is "crappy".

With the cantatas it's different, although they are more or less of consistently good quality. Same goes for for all those miscellaneous clavier works. And as far as Bach works you could say almost his entire output was composed as some kind of job duty. That doesn't detract from its artistic value. It's an aspect of his era.

You do not need to demistify something by looking for flaws, or as you put it "failures" which is a strong word and out of place. That's an idiotic attitude, especially if you teach this mindset to others. I see what you are saying about maybe noticing not everything is a great masterpiece or looking out for some weaknesses and maybe bringing your idea of a composer down to earth a little. That's normal. But you've gone all the way to make a big point of looking out for these "failures". It is like you are trying to reach a point of comformity this way. Kind of small minded.

I do not think qccowboy is being 'small minded', i think he is being realistic. Yes but, the greats did write incredibly good music, but, EVERYONE has written the odd 'crappy' piece and to say that some people haven't without hearing everything they've written is small minded in itself.

Mark

I do not think qccowboy is being 'small minded', i think he is being realistic. Yes but, the greats did write incredibly good music, but, EVERYONE has written the odd 'crappy' piece and to say that some people haven't without hearing everything they've written is small minded in itself.

Mark

That's not what happened here. His attitude was: "These guys may be great, but they write A LOT of bs so don't get scared." Went a little far with taht one if you know what I mean.

Perfection is perfection. Certain artists have come pretty close to it if you ask me.

That's not what happened here. His attitude was: "These guys may be great, but they write A LOT of bs so don't get scared." Went a little far with taht one if you know what I mean.

Perfection is perfection. Certain artists have come pretty close to it if you ask me.

please do NOT misquote me!

:toothygrin:

I never said that they wrote a lot of BS.

the exact quote is as follows:

"Mozart wrote a LOT of really crappy stuff, as did Beethoven, and Bach, and Brahms, and .

do not be intimidated by quality nor quantity, instead, let it drive you to your own perfection."

the above means that in the massive catalogue of their works, there WAS a lot of stuff that can be considered inferiour.

I think you are reacting as though I am calling some of your favourite pieces "crap".

What I in fact DID say is that all those composers wrote pieces that were of inferior quality at some point in their lives.

NONE of them were born writing masterpieces, not even Mozart and Bach.

They all went through a learning process.

AND they all at some point or other wrote pieces they were not proud of, and which have rightly been forgotten and not earned a place in the standard repertoire.

If you can somehow prove to us here that you actually are perfectly familiar with the ENTIRETY of Mozart and Bach and that you know well every single note they ever wrote, then and ONLY then can you argue against me saying that neither of them ever wrote a single piece of music that was less than genius.

I'm not saying that the standard repertoire of these composers contains "crap". I'm not saying that any specific piece by those composers is crap.

I'm saying that in the entirety of their output, they DID at some points compose music that was NOT up to their usual standards.

Those "crap" peices are there to be examined, but they do NOT get performed, because it is understood that they are weak examples of those composers' output.

You are not narrow minded to think as you do if you believe they NEVER wrote a single note that was of lesser quality, you are quite simply naive.

And again, I'm SURE you will take one single line out of my post and take it out of context and twist it to your childishly petulant ends. So before I end up getting so upset that I leave this forum for good, I will put an end to my part of this discussion.

Qccowboy,

I accept your view. Unfortunately a lot of younger members have been sold Mozart, Bach and Beethoven (who I've heard are quite good at music) but it's hardly worth arguing since there are none as blind as those who will not see. You'd almost think that no other composers existed pre-Debussy the way this trio is plugged.

I've recently been made to sit through a couple of Mozart ditties -

the Posthorn Serenade K320, and a couple of flute quartets - if I remember,

K285a&b and honestly...

compared with works like the K525 serenade, the K370 Oboe Quartet and the Horn Concertos, they are disappointing. On their strength I'm disinclined to put myself out to listen to more, not being a great fan of the classic classics anyway.

bests,

Montpellier

No need to get upset. We have gotten to the point of childish bickering by now so lets take it with a sense of humor.

Seriously speaking though, I have heard just about most of Bach's recorded output, and studied much of it on some different instruments, and to go back to what sparked this all, I can say I honestly find this massive body of work intimidating, given the consistent perfection of the large majority of it (except maybe some of the cantatas). This is my humble point of view, I am not trying to glorify anyone. Combine that with the fact that a large portion of the cantatas are also beautifully crafted, and it really does seem intimidating to me. The intimidation comes not so much from the inspiration in the body of music but the dedication and hard work which went into this output. There is also the pedagogical value of the works which is an important aspect which the "Bach fan" admires. For instance the inventions and sinfonias or the art of fugue. However it's not exactly what a concerto lover would consider his cup of tea. With Beethoven although I'm not such a big fan of the style and I haven't heard much of the work, you can take away the less inspired compositions and you still have a huge amount of great work. This is my point of view. I can't speak about Mozart or Brahms but I would likely agree with you on them if I listened to more of the stuff. So what I meant is you can take away the lesser works and you still have a huge output of genius work. That is the idea I meant by the prolific output being intimidating. I acted rude with the attacks on you etc QCcowboy, but I see the point you made too and it is valid in my opinion, especially since you probably have heard a lot more from many of these composers which I haven't, and that goes a long way into forming a general opinion on the matter, and makes your point of view all the more sensible. Me I spend my time with mostly a single style or era which inevitably creates for a different kind of expectation. I tihnk you are right in the point you made and me I was just too arrogant to accept it in the broader perspective.

To quote from Charles Rosen:

Soon after K.271 came the two-piano Concerto K.365, an amiable, brilliant, and unimportant piece, and the Concerto for Flute and Harp K.299, which is hackwork: it is true that Mozart's hackwork is a lesser composer's inspiration, and his craftsmanship is significant even here, but it would be doing Mozart less than justice to discuss this work along with the great concertos.

No need to get upset.

Why not? What better an excuse to drink?

:w00t:

That's not what happened here. His attitude was: "These guys may be great, but they write A LOT of bs so don't get scared." Went a little far with taht one if you know what I mean.

Perfection is perfection. Certain artists have come pretty close to it if you ask me.

Perfection is impossible, if you think you are, you're not

No need to get upset. We have gotten to the point of childish bickering by now so lets take it with a sense of humor.

Seriously speaking though, I have heard just about most of Bach's recorded output, and studied much of it on some different instruments, and to go back to what sparked this all, I can say I honestly find this massive body of work intimidating, given the consistent perfection of the large majority of it (except maybe some of the cantatas). This is my humble point of view, I am not trying to glorify anyone. Combine that with the fact that a large portion of the cantatas are also beautifully crafted, and it really does seem intimidating to me. The intimidation comes not so much from the inspiration in the body of music but the dedication and hard work which went into this output. There is also the pedagogical value of the works which is an important aspect which the "Bach fan" admires. For instance the inventions and sinfonias or the art of fugue. However it's not exactly what a concerto lover would consider his cup of tea. With Beethoven although I'm not such a big fan of the style and I haven't heard much of the work, you can take away the less inspired compositions and you still have a huge amount of great work. This is my point of view. I can't speak about Mozart or Brahms but I would likely agree with you on them if I listened to more of the stuff. So what I meant is you can take away the lesser works and you still have a huge output of genius work. That is the idea I meant by the prolific output being intimidating. I acted rude with the attacks on you etc QCcowboy, but I see the point you made too and it is valid in my opinion, especially since you probably have heard a lot more from many of these composers which I haven't, and that goes a long way into forming a general opinion on the matter, and makes your point of view all the more sensible. Me I spend my time with mostly a single style or era which inevitably creates for a different kind of expectation. I tihnk you are right in the point you made and me I was just too arrogant to accept it in the broader perspective.

thank-you

apology accepted.

I can give you a very tangible example of this sort of thing of which I wrote:

I have, over the last 40 years, performed the entirety of Claude Debussy's piano music and chamber music involving piano, including the (at that time unpublished) piano trio.

I can assure you that while the majority of the works he released for public consumption are the brilliant result of a musical genius, MANY of them, so rarely performed if ever, are really of a very poor calibre. You would probably not even recognize them as coming from the same pen as the master who gave us En Blanc et Noir and La M

Perfection is impossible, if you think you are, you're not

no, I think his reference was to the perfection of others...

however, that is also a trap that is exceedingly dangerous to fall into... don't forget that you are basing this perception of "perfection" on nothing more than perfectly subjective and visceral reactions. What IS perfection? Can it be defined? I don't think so. You may feel the opposite, and that is your right. In this case, it truly is a matter of opinion. Perfection for you may not be perfection for another.

Puccini felt that his opera Suor Angelica was his best. It's probably his least popular. Who is right? The public who see "perfection" in La Boheme? Me, who sees it in Turandot? (well, at least until the middle of act three!!!) Or Puccini who saw it in his poor orphaned one-act opera that gets such rare performances. It's all subjective. There is no objective perfection.

no, I think his reference was to the perfection of others...

however, that is also a trap that is exceedingly dangerous to fall into... don't forget that you are basing this perception of "perfection" on nothing more than perfectly subjective and visceral reactions. What IS perfection? Can it be defined? I don't think so. You may feel the opposite, and that is your right. In this case, it truly is a matter of opinion. Perfection for you may not be perfection for another.

Puccini felt that his opera Suor Angelica was his best. It's probably his least popular. Who is right? The public who see "perfection" in La Boheme? Me, who sees it in Turandot? (well, at least until the middle of act three!!!) Or Puccini who saw it in his poor orphaned one-act opera that gets such rare performances. It's all subjective. There is no objective perfection.

Oh, oh well, my point is understood at least. and you are right, perfection varies wildly from person to person. But if someone comes along and starts bragging that they're perfect (Schroter is a close example of this) They usually are not, having the mindset that you're perfect is one of the worst possible things that a composer or any person can have.

Being a composer means, to me, to express your feelings by using something more subtle-ly than words and more furiously than poems.

To use notes that reflect how do you feel in a certain moment is very comforting. It makes you feel that you are being heard and your problems seem to be solved (this last is why I compose).

People do what they want to do by their own means. Composing is a passion for composers as novels are for readers.

Qccccowboy and montpellier seem the only ones on here with any brains.

Of course most of the Mozart and Bach and Beethoven you guys have all heard is good... and that is because they have all stood the test of time. Where are the 80% of the works that you hvant heard? Well it most cases they were either destroyed or noone plays them because they are not up to the same standard.

And yes.. I find it odd that in a composition forum everyone here is kind of unaware of anything post-Debussy. Some of the music I hear on the forum scares me it is so dubbed-mozart.

Qccccowboy and montpellier seem the only ones on here with any brains.

Of course most of the Mozart and Bach and Beethoven you guys have all heard is good... and that is because they have all stood the test of time. Where are the 80% of the works that you hvant heard? Well it most cases they were either destroyed or noone plays them because they are not up to the same standard.

And yes.. I find it odd that in a composition forum everyone here is kind of unaware of anything post-Debussy. Some of the music I hear on the forum scares me it is so dubbed-mozart.

We're working on that. I'm starting small, by trying to promote music written after Beethoven!

I think the only reason to find someone like Mozart intimidating is the pace of his output - and as I said, if you really compute how much he wrote per year, it's actually not that intimidating at all. Only about 25 works per year. It's not as if he churned out a sonata every day, as some of the composers here seem to believe.

That said, I will note that I write in a tonal idiom because my tastes have actually shifted in that direction. I'm probably unusual here in that I started out listening mainly to more recent music - even as far as Stockhausen - and then gradually started listening to earlier music. I'd heard much of the work of Conlon Nancarrow before ever hearing a single piece by Brahms. My problem with the more recent stuff is that so much of it consists of experiments and curiosities, with few composers writing large-scale masterpieces since Shostakovich. The question I start asking is: where's the beef?

Oh, oh well, my point is understood at least. and you are right, perfection varies wildly from person to person. But if someone comes along and starts bragging that they're perfect (Schroter is a close example of this) They usually are not, having the mindset that you're perfect is one of the worst possible things that a composer or any person can have.

In Puccini's case, it wasn't that he thought he was perfect - it's more that his own favorite among his operas was one of his least-performed. This is not unusual: Tchaikovsky's favorites among his works were also unpopular, while his two best-known, "The Nutcracker" and the 1812 Overture, were both pieces that he himself hated.

Qccccowboy and montpellier seem the only ones on here with any brains.

Interesting. Use of insulting term "crap" to describe the mediocre output of a composer (mediocre in terms of their better work) = intelligent discourse and sign of hightened sensibilities.

Everyone on YC but you, QC and montpellier lacks brains? You sound more than a little arrogant to me, bud. Elsewhere you've stated that John Williams to classical music is a "joke". Well, do better. I admire Williams and so do a good deal of others. Can you compose music of better caliber for the movie medium it was written for?

Of course most of the Mozart and Bach and Beethoven you guys have all heard is good... and that is because they have all stood the test of time. Where are the 80% of the works that you hvant heard? Well it most cases they were either destroyed or noone plays them because they are not up to the same standard.

The same standard as thier other work? No. Does that mean it deserves the label "crap"? I hardly think so. There's plenty of music that does deserve that label, however, imo.

I'll admit that after reading this thread I listened to parts of "Posthorn Serenade K320" and yeah, for Mozart, it's certainly not one of my favourites. I won't listen again soon - but I'd listen to this over alot of other musicians work.

Some of the music I hear on the forum scares me it is so dubbed-mozart.

Why should it scare you? Probably a good deal of people here admire the classical masters and wish to emulate the style. So what? Personally, I can hardly tell the difference between alot of Haydn's work and Mozart's without knowing ahead of time who wrote X piece of music. So what - I'm glad Mozart emulated Haydn and others, else there wouldn't be a number of works that I personally treasure and listen to often.

Why should it scare you? Probably a good deal of people here admire the classical masters and wish to emulate the style. So what? Personally, I can hardly tell the difference between alot of Haydn's work and Mozart's without knowing ahead of time who wrote X piece of music. So what - I'm glad Mozart emulated Haydn and others, else there wouldn't be a number of works that I personally treasure and listen to often.

First of all, there are many differences between Mozart and Haydn. You can tell them if you listen closely. It is true that they come from the same period and have similar sounds but they're types of melodies are different etc.

In any case, I don't think Sollis is trying to say that is scares him. Rather, I think he is trying to say that he wants to hear more modern music, perhaps post-Beethoven or post-Mahler. I'm not sure, but I do agree. Everyone is trying to emulate Mozart.

When I am just starting out as a composer, there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I should be trying to emulate a composer's style as there is a lot to learn in it.

However, if I feel or say that I have attained your own style and I don't need to copy or learn anymore, it would be best for I to compose in a more contemporary style.

Neo-Classism and Neo-Romanticism are possibilities if I really like a certain period of music. However, the fact of the matter is that each period has gone and each period has had its masters who I can never surpass. Therefore, I have to use newer musical ideas. I can reference the old ones, as I said before, but new harmonies and new orchestrations are important to use.

I, for example, have only posted one or two pieces on this website. One of them is the "Musical Essay" for two pianos. This piece is less than a minute and is quite modern. Polytonality is prevalent in this piece, but nowhere else on the website, have I heard anything similar or as modern.

That, I believe, is what Sollis is saying and I do agree because music constantly evolves. Would I like to return to the lifestyle of the middle ages? No. Would I like to return to the composition style of Mozart? Perhaps in a way, but entirely? No.